tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post2059975056433459884..comments2013-09-23T20:40:03.587-05:00Comments on U.S. Intellectual History: "Politicizing" and the Rhetoric of ReactionIndy Photo Presshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14307611680484362211noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-16742469497759705712012-12-19T04:52:03.879-06:002012-12-19T04:52:03.879-06:00I Have a Dream: President Obama will One day Comfo...I Have a Dream: President Obama will One day Comfort the Parents of Drone Victims of Pakistan@ http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/12/uncategorized/i-have-a-dream-presdent-obama-also-comforting-parents-of-drone-victimsZanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11432457797465173083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-13233015749695880302012-12-18T17:41:18.038-06:002012-12-18T17:41:18.038-06:00A very fair objection, Bill! I think you&#39;re 1...A very fair objection, Bill! I think you&#39;re 100% correct that to turn this from a blog post to a (more substantial form of) history would necessarily involve looking at a broader context and the one you suggest (notions of the political) seems like a very good one to me (and also points to Varad&#39;s comment above...I honestly don&#39;t think anyone I&#39;d discussing is thinking of Schmitt&#39;s sense of &quot;the political,&quot; but it&#39;s an interesting thing to throw in the mix).<br /><br />I do think, both in the late &#39;60s and more recently, accusations of &quot;politicization&quot; have been more associated with the right than with the left, but I don&#39;t think they&#39;re exclusively conservative, nor are my examples so. As I&#39;ve said above (and you repeat) vis a vis feminism, the New Left, I think, often tended to argue that things simply were political, so the notion that politics could be excluded from them is an ideological fantasy. A liberal publication like the New York Times would have been more likely to agree with conservatives that some things should be and could be beyond politics. <br /><br />But about the limited utility of isolating &quot;politicize&quot; (or any other single word), I basically agree.Ben Alpershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11633460882064569533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-39481884369351283332012-12-18T15:15:47.916-06:002012-12-18T15:15:47.916-06:00Ben - Several of your quotations are from NYT e...Ben - Several of your quotations are from NYT editorials, and in your second note you refer to the paper’s “liberalism,” but you seem to summarize by referring to their “conservative, ‘culture-war’ quality.’” What support is there for your assertion that the right “set the tone for the most common political uses of ‘politicize’ in ensuing decades.” I don’t know, but it might be supportable if you stick to that form of “politics” or the “political.” <br /><br />I guess it would take a linguist to clarify fully how the -ize suffix conditions, alters, is constrained by or subsumed in, the “root” term. But a historian might wonder what rationale there might be for breaking word-based histories [perhaps problematical in their own right] into evermore micro histories based on numerous available suffixes or, why not, prefixes of a given “keyword.” I mean, just because google does it, doesn’t make it right. <br /><br />Would one count “the personal is political” as an instance of “politicizing,” or is it something different? Feminists might have believed that the personal is always already political, but somebody had to make the assertion at the outset. Maybe the right, once again, is taking cues from the “other side.” And I’m never sure whether “culture war” has two participants, or just one. <br /><br />Now somebody is going to think that I’ve joined the blogging chorus on the right, but no. <br /><br />Just putting out a question, or thought -- how far can you get isolating “politicizing” from a much large, ongoing collective process of working through – too teleological a way to put it – the meaning and boundary of politics, vis-à-vis what? the market and civil society? state of nature? Check out Hartman. <br /><br />Bill Finehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13516701401167249296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-50512741629473901372012-12-18T06:31:13.185-06:002012-12-18T06:31:13.185-06:00Very interesting observation, Dan. I noticed that...Very interesting observation, Dan. I noticed that shift, too, though I guess I felt it was less fundamental than you do (fwiw, though it&#39;s hardly historically dispositive, the OED folds both these uses into a single meaning). I suppose the question is the relationship between the &#39;60s/&#39;70s uses and the contemporary ones. I still think it&#39;s pretty direct, despite this shift, in part because there are still continuities. In a sense, the memorial service is an intermediate case, involving both the conversion of a neutral entity into a political one _and_ using suffering for political gain. And the Newtown case, I think still retains a resonance of keeping politics out of non-political areas (schools and, in an odd way, guns), even while the focus is, as you say, on not instrumentalizing a tragedy.Ben Alpershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11633460882064569533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-89193605749633095362012-12-17T22:56:34.344-06:002012-12-17T22:56:34.344-06:00Interesting post Ben. Actually, I&#39;m not entire...Interesting post Ben. Actually, I&#39;m not entirely sure that the late 60s/early 70s meanings you lay out here are comparable to contemporary usage. The idea of &quot;making something political&quot; has at least two meanings, one of which appears dominant in the passages you quote, but seems different to my ear from contemporary usage. These passages involve a substantive conversion of some putatively neutral entity (say, the university) into a political one. Today, however, the sense in many of the usages I hear is to instrumentalize some event for political, and especially partisan, advantage. Taking political advantage of a &quot;tragedy&quot; is converting it into an instrument to achieve political ends and is disparaged because, at least on the surface, it can be made to appear disrespectful or insensitive to use someone&#39;s suffering for partisan gain. This seems very different than the substantive infusing of politics (or struggles over power) into an arena that was viewed as neutral or outside the scope of the political.Dan Wickbergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-70068875362297514942012-12-17T22:16:51.364-06:002012-12-17T22:16:51.364-06:00Nice timely piece Ben! I would add the phrase poli...Nice timely piece Ben! I would add the phrase politically correct to politicize, both are intended to disarm and shut down a voice opposing the status quo.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13241595433917371787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-70764083189389371292012-12-17T18:25:36.522-06:002012-12-17T18:25:36.522-06:00Someone will inevitably bring Carl Schmitt into it...Someone will inevitably bring Carl Schmitt into it, so I&#39;ll do it myself and create a temporal paradox in the process! Varad Mehtahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01094445089997640099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-61559472795241504522012-12-17T17:44:20.705-06:002012-12-17T17:44:20.705-06:00Absolutely, Tim. Defining the home, e.g., as poli...Absolutely, Tim. Defining the home, e.g., as political space was one of the goals of second-wave feminism, though I think most feminists would say that it was always already political. And consciousness raising was all about politicizing people who did not yet understand their situations politically.Ben Alpershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11633460882064569533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-18765362126848974972012-12-17T16:41:53.163-06:002012-12-17T16:41:53.163-06:00Keeping the discussion rooted in the 1960s, my sen...Keeping the discussion rooted in the 1960s, my sense is that this form of &quot;politicize&quot; is also linked to the backlash against feminism---the whole &quot;personal is political&quot; mantra, Betty Friedan, and the history outlined by Sara Evans in *Personal Politics* (1979/1980). So reactions against &quot;politicizing&quot; things may also have gendered undertones. - TLTim Lacyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098955217921572372noreply@blogger.com